Developmental stages in self-regulation

Although self-regulation appears in humans as early as the age of three, it is only in mid-adolescence that individuals begin to pursue goals and subordinate behaviour to pre-planned actions and targets (Demetriou, 2000). It seems likely that the development of self-regulation is both a socially-situated process, characterised by imitation (Demetriou, 2000), and an individual progress where learners go through developmental stages (Zimmerman, 2000). In particular, the understanding of the mind, self-image, and self-development all develop in parallel to each other as children grow older. Table 2.10 shows the major steps in this development, based on Demetriou (2000). He claims that within individuals the awareness of mind and self is fostered by observation, interaction, self-regulation, and regulation by others, in other words, co-regulation turns into self-regulation, a mechanism Demetriou calls internalisation.

Zimmerman (2000) hypothesises four developmental stages of how self-regulatory skills evolve but, in contrast to other developmental stage models, he proposes that learners might not go through them in a linear fashion (cf. dynamic systems). The four stages are as follows: (i) observation, (ii) emulation (previously called imitation), (iii) self-control, and (iv) self-regulation. Independent use of skills occurs in the self-control stage, while adaptive behaviour emerges in the fourth stage only. In his view, sequential development will result in easier and more effective mastery of the target material. At the same time, it is stressed that the inborn ability to control cognitive processes gives rise to self-regulation (McCombs, 1999). In addition,

75 as Boekaerts and Niemivirta (2000) underline, the processes in self-regulation stem from “the identification, interpretation, and appraisal of an opportunity to learn” (p.

418). There is a belief that people differ in their ability to self-regulate (Rheinberg, Vollmeyer & Rollett, 2000; Zimmerman, 2000), which raises the question as to what extent instruction can improve strategy use, and also whether self-regulation is an additional ID factor.

Table 2.10 The major steps in the development of understanding the mind, self-image and self-regulation (based on Demetriou, 2000)

Age Understanding the mind Self-image Self-regulation 0-1

years

Differentiation of the body and outer world

Neurophysiological and sensorimotor modulation 1-2

years

Implicit metarepresentation (banana used as a telephone)

Self-recognition in the mirror Sensorimotor schemes under intentional control 3-5

years

Understanding that thinking is internal mental activity, differentiation between perception, knowing and thinking

Self-concept is based on observable characteristics

Self-control: awareness, toddlers can follow requests but cannot delay

gratification 6-8

years

Understanding the stream of consciousness and inner speech, the content of thought can be related with ongoing activity

Self-descriptions are generally positive and inaccurate

Self-regulation through inner speech, attention, motivation and stimulus control

8-10 years

Understanding the constructive nature of thought,

differentiation between cognitive functions

Global self-worth, integrating self-representations

Short-term goals; mastery over thought, emotional factors and behaviour 11-13

years

Different kinds of the same cognitive function can be distinguished, differentiation between different thought domains

Higher-order abstractions about the self

Interest about the future, middle-scale planning, systematic regulation of every-day activities 14-16

years

Awareness of particular cognitive processes and operations

Accurate global self-concept Planning the future

76 2.2.6.2 Instructional aspects of self-regulation

Students, both children and adults, need instruction as to how to go about learning in general, and in how to use learning and self-regulatory strategies in particular (e.g., Dörnyei, 2005; Little, 2007; Locke & Latham, 1999; Paris & Winograd, 2001). Randi and Corno (2000) highlight the elements of teaching that can allow teachers to facilitate and create opportunities for self-regulation. These are as follows:

 Encourage students to meet challenges.

 Build communities.

 Use explicit and scaffolded strategy instruction.

 Use diagnostic performance evaluation.

 Use curriculum-based assessments.

The reason why the initiation of self-regulation in the classroom-context lies with the teacher might be that traditionally students expect the teacher to provide them with material, resources, motivation, and control (Boekaerts & Niemivirta, 2000). As was discussed above, self-regulation is a human characteristic (Molnár, 2002b;

Zimmerman, 2000), but one which shows different levels of mastery in different individuals (Zimmerman, 2000). In this respect, self-regulation can be conceived of as an ID factor, but it is one that can be improved (McKeachie, 2000). According to Winne (1997), self-regulatory strategies can be learnt to a varying extent, but students need to be instructed, and they need to be provided with plenty of practice and appropriate feedback in class.

Randi and Corno (2000) argue for the need for strategy instruction, because in this way students can be promoted as active learners, and their classroom intervention project is a good example of strategy instruction. Students first need to identify

77 strategies the hero Odysseus used in the face of difficulties he had upon returning home.

They compile a list of their own strategies similar to those Odysseus applied. The students then read a hero quest of their choice, and discuss patterns and strategies the hero used to reach his goals. The students generate their own list of strategies, and then carry out a jigsaw task based on the same tale focussing on different aspects of self-regulation. After reconvening in a different set of groups, there is at least one expert on the various self-regulatory strategies in each group. They exchange their ideas and finally, as a group, write a contemporary quest using as many strategies as possible. The project work includes analysis of setting goals, how to overcome obstacles, what led to changes in the hero‟s behaviour, and what the hero learnt from his experiences.

Randi and Corno (2000) are in favour of teacher innovations when it comes to self-regulation. This can happen in any of the micro-stages of self-regulation (Pintrich, 2000), or between teachers and researchers (Randi & Corno, 2000). Zimmerman (2000) highlights the importance of socialising agents such as parents, teachers, coaches, and peers in this process. Students should be allowed to create their own learning episodes, which can lead to the development of effective self-regulation (Boekaerts & Niemivirta, 2000). Teacher planning is shown to be adaptive, and tasks are co-constructed between teachers and students (Randi & Corno, 2000).

Paris and Winograd (2001) present a five-step action plan for teachers to implement self-regulatory strategies in teaching: (i) precontemplation, (ii) contemplation, (iii) preparation, (iv) action, and (v) maintenance. They suggest that, via explicit instruction, teachers can increase their own metacognitive understanding, which, in turn, will help instruction. Modelling, explicit discussions, and reflective analyses, in their opinion, leads to increased self-regulatory strategy use in students, although, as they state, students need self-regulation for different purposes.

78 When opportunity and necessity harmonise, the appropriate environment for the development of self-regulation arises (Boekaerts & Niemivirta, 2000). In this context trust and risk-taking are encouraged (Randi & Corno, 2000). Zimmerman (2000) argues that self-regulation can be enhanced if teachers model and verbalise their strategies.

However, the development of self-regulation, and thus self-regulatory strategies in the classroom is not an easy undertaking (Boekaerts & Niemivirta, 2000). Students should not consider the teacher as the main source of knowledge and control but need to take control of their learning, and also need to be knowledgeable about their own needs and pursue nontrivial goals. The role of the teacher is also interesting: it has been proved in medical research that the same person can have a different effect on the participant (patient) as a function of race and social environment (Brownlee, Leventhal &

Leventhal, 2000), and this may well be the case in teaching as well.

It must also be mentioned that instruction can be detrimental to fostering self-regulation. Kanfer and Stevenson (1985) found that tasks demanding high levels of cognitive processing can interfere with self-regulation, and thus lower performance efficiency. In addition, such situations lead to abandonment of the task. Although the authors carried out their research under laboratory conditions in clinical settings, the results warrant caution.